F. Situation of the victims’ next of kin 51. The day of the fire, at 9.30 a.m., about 200 next of kin were outside the prison waiting for information about the inmates. At 1 p.m., the Auxiliary Bishop of San Pedro Sula, Monsignor Romulo Emiliani, read the list of the injured inmates who were hospitalized and, one hour later, he returned to read the list of those who had died. 52. The identification of the corpses lasted several days. On the third day, the next of kin, in their desperation, “attempted to break through the fence to enter the morgue.” The identification of the bodies was carried out hastily and without DNA testing, “comparing photographs of the dead with their identity cards and other documents.” Consequently, mistakes were made in the delivery of corpses, which increased the suffering of the next of kin. 53. The State decided to give the next of kin of the deceased the sum of 10,000 Lempiras, “to transport the corpse and funerals.” This money was given to some families at the courts and in the hospital.46 G. Judicial proceedings before the domestic courts 54. The investigations began on May 17, 2004. On August 11, 2004, when the Prosecutor General issued a formal request for the indictment of Elias Aceituno Canaca, Director of the San Pedro Sula Prison at the time of the fire, on charges of culpable homicide, culpable injuries, and breach of functional obligations.47 On August 12, 2004, Mr. Aceituno Canaca was granted a precautionary measure in lieu of judicial detention consisting of appearing before the corresponding court every two weeks, and the prohibition from leaving the country. 55. On September 1, 2004, the judge of the Judicial District of San Pedro Sula ordered the dismissal of the proceedings against Mr. Aceituno Canaca, declaring the prosecution’s claims unfounded, considering that the evidence presented by the prosecution was not sufficient to establish his responsibility for the deterioration of the electrical installations, because like all materials, they were, subject to the passage of time. He also indicated that it was not possible to “saddle” the responsibility on someone who did what was in his power to prevent the disaster.48 On September 6, 2004, the Public Prosecution Service filed an Hernán Mejia Aguilar, Dennis Antonio Santin, Alexander Ramírez, Samuel Amaya Rodriguez, Elvin Alfredo Soto, Erick Noel Navarro, Franklin Geovanny Chávez Jiménez, Gilberto Núñez Cruz, Gustavo Olivera, Javier Alejandro Pineda Orellana, Javier Antonio Hernández and Jose Anselmo Hernández (files of attachments to the merits report, tomes I and II, attachments 5, 8, 11, 12, 13, 16, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 27, and folios 421 to 423, 435 to 438, 447 to 450, 452 to 454, 456 to 458, 466 to 468, 476 to 477, 482 to 485, 487 to 490, 492 to 502, 504 to 507, 509 to 513, and 521 to 523, respectively). 46 Cf. Testimony of Rómulo Emiliani (file of attachments to the merits report, attachment 34, folios 548 to 552). Also, Isis Gricelda Perdomo Zelaya testified before notary public that, in order to claim this amount, it was necessary to fill in a form with the deceased’s data, indicating whether the family required a coffin, and then wait for information about the autopsy from the Forensic Medicine Unit. This process had “not been very acceptable” to the next of kin of the deceased, owing to the climate of anguish and impatience in light of the delay in delivering the corpses; and some people did not claim the “voucher” considering it an insult (file of attachments to the merits report, folios 545 to 546). 4747 Cf. Indictment request by the Public Prosecution Service, supra note 38, folio 403. 48 This decision established that “none of the evidence provided by the prosecutor is determinant to conclude […] that Elías Aceituno Canaca is responsible for […] the deterioration of the electrical installations, [because] they are […] subject to the passage […] of time[. W]e cannot assign responsibility for this deterioration to an individual who, at the time, was in charge of the administration of the prison; […] the evidence provided by the defense to disprove the Public Prosecution Service’s accusation is overwhelming and extremely sound […]. It should be recognized that, with regard to [the crime of omission,] there is an obligation to avoid a result. Based on, and in 16